Trial
Transcript
[[ At the request of the
defendant, names have not
been changed. ]]
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
JEAN
R. BROWN, PRO TEM, DEPARTMENT 83
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROGER WILLIAM NEILL, Defendant.
No. 03TR041228
COURT TRIAL
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
FRIDAY, MAY 2, 2003
APPEARANCES
For the People: OFFICER JOHN McCURRY,
California Highway Patrol
For Defendant: ROGER
WILLIAM
NEILL, Pro Per
-o0o-
THE COURT: Okay. Mr.
Neill. You know how
the process works at this point?
MR. NEILL: Yes, your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Are we -- I’m
going to ask, do you want to change your plea to
no contest and ask for traffic school?
MR. NEILL: No, thank
you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I don’t think I’m
going to get any takers for that. You know that?
Officer, you want to
get started again.
OFFICER McCURRY:
Yes, your Honor. John McCurry, M-c-C-u-r-r-y,
employed by the California Highway Patrol, have
been so for the past eight years, currently
assigned to the red light camera program for
Sacramento County.
I’ll briefly explain
my training, experience, as well as the technology
of the system. And then I’ll go over the pertinent
information for this particular violation.
I've been trained --
trained in the red light camera system by a
company called ACS. This is a two-day training
course which I attended. This included field and
classroom work. And at the completion of the
course, I was required to pass a written test,
which I did so successfully, certifying me in the
theory and operation of the red light camera
system.
Page
2:
The system is
comprised of a camera, a flash unit, a film
canister, onboard computer with memory card, and a
set of a two electromagnetic loops, which are
embedded into the roadway.
This system is
designed so that the first photograph can only be
taken when the light is red. Additionally, three
elements must exist before a violation can be
captured on film:
One, the light must
be red for at least two-tenths of a second. Two,
the vehicle must be traveling in a prescribed
direction over the mag -- electromagnetic loops,
being the vehicle has to go forward over the
loops. It can’t back up and activate the system.
Three, the vehicle must be traveling at or above a
program minimum speed, which is 12 miles per hour
for turns and 15 miles per hour for
straight-throughs.
This particular
violation is a left-hand turn; therefore, it must
be traveling at a minimum of 12 miles per hour.
This system is
maintained on a daily basis, excluding weekends
and holidays. Maintenance includes checking the
internal operations and components of the
computer, as well as retrieval of the film.
Once collected, the
film is sent to a processing center where it’s
developed and digitized. The digitized photos are
then sent through a T-l line to computer terminals
located at the Sacramento County Sheriff’s
Department, where I work out of.
Page
3:
CHP officers and/or
sheriff personnel review all images captured by
the camera via the T-1 line onto the computer.
When it is in the opinion of the reviewing officer
that the violation meets all criteria as I
mentioned before, the officer will obtain and
assert all pertinent information and attach to the
photograph such as the registration -- registered
owner of the vehicle and driver’s license
information. The officer will then send the
citation via U.S. Mail to the registered owner of
the violator vehicle.
On February 13th,
2003, at 8:27 in the morning, a violation of
21453(c) of the California Vehicle Code was
captured on film. The violation occurred at
westbound Fair Oaks Boulevard to southbound Watt
Avenue. And this is located in the unincorporated
county of Sacramento.
A citation was
issued to the registered owner of a 1999 Chevy
pickup truck bearing the California license plate
-- it’s a personalized plate -- of R, as in
Robert, 0, as in ocean, G, as in George, A, as in
Adam, H, as in Henry, and H, as in Henry.
The citation was
issued via U.S. Mail on February 19th, 2003, which
is within the 15-day requirement as set forth by
the California Vehicle Code.
Your Honor, I have
three photographs with me here today. They were
taken by the camera of this violation. They are
premarked People’s 1, 2, and 3. I’d like to show
the defendant these photographs and explain them
further to the court.
[Pause]
Page
4:
OFFICER McCURRY:
Your Honor, People’s Exhibit No. 1 is a color
photograph.
At this particular
intersection, there are three left-hand turn
lanes. We have one camera monitoring the first and
second left-hand turn lane and then the third
camera, which is this particular camera,
monitoring the third left-hand turn lane, what we
call the No. 1 lane, because it only monitors one
lane. But it is a third left hand turn lane in
this situation.
The photograph that
I have here is a color photograph. It shows the
defendant’s red pickup truck in the No. 3
left-hand turn lane, clearly behind the crosswalk.
There is a superimposed databox on top of the
photograph. There are three lines within the box.
The very top line indicates the date and time of
the violation, which is 8:27 in the morning on
February 13th, 2003. The second line, the
left-hand side, 1Y3.5, this is the No. 1 loop
lane, which is the third left-hand turn lane in
this instance. The vehicle was in that lane. And
it indicates the light had been yellow for 3.5
seconds before it turned red.
Page
5:
Next to that, R003,
this indicates when this photograph was taken, the
light had been red for three-tenths of a second,
showing the defendant’s vehicle still behind the
crosswalk, not having entered into the
intersection yet. And the third line, left-hand
side, 007, this is the seventh violation on this
particular film canister. And next to that, 4028,
is the location code that we use for this camera
at Fair Oaks and Watt. The second photograph that
I have here, premarked People’s Exhibit No. 2, is
a color photograph. It now shows the defendant’s
vehicle in the intersection. There is a
superimposed databox on top. There are three
lines. The very top line indicates the same date
and time as the first photograph. The second line,
left-hand side, 3.73, this is the amount of time
that has elapsed between the first photograph and
second photograph. So it took the subject 3.73
seconds to get from the first photograph to the
second photograph, the location.
Next to that, R040,
this indicates, when this photograph was taken,
the light had been red for 4.0 seconds, showing
the defendant’s vehicle in the middle of the
intersection, indicating he did not stop prior to
the crosswalk for the red light.
The third line,
left-hand side, 007, once again, is the seventh
violation on this particular film canister. And
next to that, V equals 24, this indicates while,
in photograph No. 1, when the defendant’s vehicle
would be still behind the crosswalk, he was
traveling 24 miles per hour.
The third photograph
that I have here is a color photograph. It is a
blowup of People’s No. 2. It is used for
identification. purposes. It is my opinion that
the gentleman seat to my right is the driver of
the vehicle in this photograph.
Page
6:
If there are no
objections, I’d like to introduce People’s 1, 2,
and 3 as evidence in this matter.
MR. NEILL: Your
Honor, I have only one objection, and that is that
a proper foundation be laid for admission of this
evidence and that it conform to the requirements
of Vehicle Code Section 21455.7.
THE COURT: I’m
sorry. My ears are a little plugged.
MR. NEILL: Oh.
THE COURT: 21 --
MR. NEILL: -- 455.7,
which states, “At each intersection at which there
is an automated enforcement system in operation,
the minimum yellow light change interval shall be
established in accordance with the traffic manual
of the Department of Transportation.”
So I’d just like for
a proper foundation to be laid before these --
THE COURT: So --
MR. NEILL: --
photographs are admitted into evidence.
THE COURT: What are you claiming is
not --
MR. NEILL: It has
not been established on the record that the system
which took these photographs was being operated
with a minimum yellow light change interval as
established by the traffic manual of the
Department of Transportation, as specified in
Vehicle Code Section 21455 .7.
Page
7:
OFFICER McCURRY:
Well, your Honor, if you’d like to do that, I can
do that. But if he wants me to do that, maybe I
should specify to everything that relates to red
light camera systems to lay the foundation for
this.
THE COURT: Well,
he’s only raised the one objection. So --
OFFICER McCURRY:
Okay. I can address that. The --
Vehicle Code Section 21455.7 requires that all
yellow times -- with an automated traffic system
set up that the yellow time be in accordance with
the Department of Transportation’s traffic --
safety traffic -- traffic safety manual.
This yellow time is
in accordance with that manual. The manual itself
gives a recommended speed. And I will provide the
court this information.
THE COURT: What is
the anticipated -- or recommended speed for
left-hand turns?
OFFICER McCURRY: The
recommended speed for left-hand turns is 3.1.
However, the County of Sacramento has set all of
their lights, yellow times for its automated
system, at 3.5 seconds. However, it could be
3.4999. [Indiscernible] 3 .4.
So the yellow time
on this particular violation greatly exceeds the
recommended yellow time set forth by Caltrans,
which is the California Vehicle Code mandates.
THE COURT: Okay. Do
you have those documents?
OFFICER McCURRY:
Yes.
[Off-record
conversation]
THE COURT: Is that
for the defendant? Is that for me? Is that for the
court?
Page
8:
[Off-record
conversation]
[Pause]
OFFICER McCURRY:
Your Honor, what I’m presenting to you is a
portion of the Department of Transportation --
THE COURT: Show then
to the defendant first.
OFFICER McCURRY: Oh.
-- the Department of Transportation safety traffic
manual. It’s dated --
it’s the most current edition, November 2002. It
goes into Section 9-04.5. It discusses yellow
change intervals.
Additionally, I have
a letter from the senior civil engineer of signal
operations for the Public Works, the County of
Sacramento, also addressing yellow times and,
specifically, addressing left-hand turns in the
Caltrans traffic manual. [[Reproduced below,
and later admitted as People's Exhibit 7.]]
MR. NEILL: This is
very close, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr.
Neill, I will be having copies of that made, so
you will have a copy to -- to look at.
MR. NEILL: Oh, that
would be fine. I only wanted to point out that
there’s a table, 9-1, that’s specified in this
section regarding yellow interval times that is
not included.
OFFICER McCURRY:
Right.
MR. NEILL: And the
table documents the actual mathematical formula to
determine minimum yellow --
OFFICER McCURRY:
Right. There’s a mathematical formula you put in,
the approach speed of the vehicle, and
additionally, like braking distance, and you come
up with a set time.
Page
9:
However, it gives
you an -- an approach speed. It tells you what it
is. I can actually work up the mathematical
formula for the defendant at this particular
intersection if you’d like me to. It would
probably take about five minutes. I could probably
draw it all up there.
MR. NEILL: I also
have a copy of the table, which I got off-line. I
don’t know if it’s the latest.
OFFICER McCURRY: If
he got it off - line, your Honor, it is the most
latest information. It’s the 2002.
THE COURT: Do you --
MR. NEILL: Which --
THE COURT: -- want
that admitted into evidence as well?
MR. NEILL: As long
as it’s -- yes, that would be fine.
THE COURT: Okay.
Would you hand it to the officer.
[Pause]
OFFICER McCURRY:
Yes, your Honor. It’s the mathematical formula on
how they derive at the numbers.
THE COURT: Okay. So
we’re going to have People’s Exhibits --
THE CLERK: 6 and. 7.
THE COURT: -- 6 and
7 and Defendant’s Exhibit --
THE CLERK: A.
THE COURT: -- A.
MR. NEILL: And with
that, your Honor, I have no further objection to
the admission of the photographs.
Page
10:
THE COURT: Okay. Then I will admit
them.
[People’s Exhibit
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 admitted into evidence]
OFFICER McCURRY:
Your Honor, as I had mentioned earlier, this
system is maintained on a daily basis, excluding
weekends and holidays.
We have field
technicians that go out to the cameras and ensure
they are functioning properly. When they go out
there, they will check the cameras and they will
fill out a field service and inspection log and
notate the results on these logs.
I have two such logs
with me today. They are premarked People’s 4 and
5, I’d like to show the defendant these photograph
-- or, excuse me -- these logs and explain them
further to the court.
Your Honor, People's
Exhibit No. 4 is a field service and inspection
log dated February 12th, 2003. It’s with camera
location code 4028. It’s the same camera in
question. If you were looking at the photographs,
it would be the same location code, Fair Oaks and
Watt Avenue.
The technician that
filled this out is a Dustin Thomas. He signed and
dated the inspection log. He began the service at
14:20 hours and completed the service at 14:24
hours. He indicated the system was functioning
properly and there were no problems with it.
Page
11:
What I have here is
People’s Exhibit No. 5. This is a field service
and inspection log dated February 13th, 2003, for
camera location code 4028, the same -- the same
camera in question. The technician that filled
this out is a Dustin Thomas. He signed and dated
it. He began the service at 11:12 hours and
completed it at 11:18 hours. He indicated the
system was functioning properly and there were no
problems with it.
Your Honor, if there
are no objections, I’d like to introduce People’s
4 and 5 as evidence in this matter that this
system was functioning properly at the time of the
violation.
MR. NEILL: Your Honor,
I don’t see any indication on these forms that
this certifies in any way that the traffic signal
light itself is operating properly or has been
tested. However, for the purpose of documenting
that the automated enforcement system is
functioning properly and was checked, I have no
objection.
THE COURT: Okay. They’re so
admitted.
[People’s Exhibit Nos. 4, 5 admitted into
evidence]
THE COURT: Mr. Neill, do you
have any objection to the admission of People’s 6
and 7?
MR. NEILL: No, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Officer McCurry,
do you have any objection to admission of Defense
Exhibit A?
OFFICER McCURRY: No,
your Honor.
THE COURT: All exhibits are so
entered then.
[People’s Exhibit
Nos. 6, 7, Defendant’s Exhibit A admitted into
evidence]
Page
12:
OFFICER McCURRY: I
have no further [sic], your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir?
OFFICER McCURRY: I
have no further [sic].
THE COURT: Nothing further. Okay.
Okay. Okay. Mr.
Neill, you’re up. Do you have any questions for
the officer or --
MR. NEILL: Yes, I do,
your Honor, just a very few questions. And I’d
like to say in advance what it is I’m trying to
show by these -- this series of just a few
questions.
I’m trying to show
that Vehicle Code Section 21453(c), the section
that I am charged with violating, expressly
specifies that the intentions of the driver at the
moment of entering the intersection is an element
of this offense and that demonstrating the
driver’s intention at the moment prior to entering
the intersection is not conducive to proof by
photographic evidence.
So with that in
mind, I would just ask, you are a law enforcement
officer, Officer McCurry?
OFFICER McCURRY:
Yes, I am.
MR. NEILL: And by what
government agency are you employed?
OFFICER McCURRY: The
California Highway Patrol.
MR. NEILL: And how long
have you been -- been employed, by that agency in
the capacity of a law enforcement officer?
OFFICER McCURRY:
Eight years.
Page
13:
MR. NEILL: Are your
present duties exclusively in the area of
automated enforcement systems or do you also do
patrol work?
OFFICER McCURRY: I
-- my primary function is the red light camera
system; however, I do patrol at times.
MR. NEILL: You do. And
have -- have you done patrol duties in the field
in the past during your eight years?
OFFICER McCURRY:
Seven years prior.
MR. NEILL: Have you
ever issued a citation for a red light or a red
arrow violation before while on patrol at the
intersection of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt
Avenue?
THE COURT: I’m going to disallow
that question unless you can explain to me why
that’s relevant.
MR. NEILL: I’m trying
to test the officer’s familiarity with this
particular intersection that’s involved in this
violation.
THE COURT: That question doesn’t do
that.
MR. NEILL: Okay. I’ll
withdraw the question then, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NEILL: Are you
generally familiar with the intersection of Fair
Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue?
OFFICER McCURRY:
Yes, I am.
MR. NEILL: I’d like to
show the witness an overhead photograph of Fair
Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue, your Honor --
THE COURT: Okay.
Page
14:
MR. NEILL: -- for the
purpose of just the general familiarity with the
lanes and where the signal locations are.
THE COURT: All right. That will be
Peo -- or Defense Exhibit B.
[Defendant’s Exhibit
B marked for identification]
MR. NEILL: Yes, your
Honor.
[Pause]
[Off-record
conversation]
MR. NEILL: Does that
seem, generally, an accurate overhead portrayal of
Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue? Where -- this
would be Fair Oaks Boulevard approaching westbound
toward. [Indicating.] The west, it angles in. And
there’s three left turn lanes for turning left
onto southbound Watt Avenue.
OFFICER McCURRY:
Your Honor, this could be the intersection. It
looks similar. This is a -- this photograph is a
-- as you see, it’s extremely high -- bless you.
It’s extremely high In the air.
Truthfully, it -- it
could be any intersection that has the same kind
of setup. I don’t know specifically if it is that
intersection or not. Just from the -- the vantage
point of this, it’s not close enough to identify
landmarks.
THE COURT: Okay.
Page
15:
MR. NEILL: Your Honor,
by way of identifying the photograph, I can swear
under penalty of perjury that I obtained this
photograph from a commercial source. And --
THE COURT: Officer
McCurry, would you bring it up, please.
OFFICER McCURRY: Sure. [Pause]
THE COURT: For what purpose do you
want to have this photograph admitted, sir?
MR. NEILL: To expedite
the description of this intersection and the
number of lanes and in which directions those
lanes of traffic are traveling and where these
precise signal lights are located at the
intersection and for the purpose of visually
demonstrating how the intentions of the driver it
one of those left turn lanes is significant to
this case in -- in --
THE COURT: Well, I’m going to have
to agree with the officer. For those purposes,
this photograph is not adequate.
MR. NEILL: Okay. Well,
I can do it --
THE COURT: For giving a general
idea of the area, you know, I -- I’m happy to take
your word for it. But this isn’t going to be
detailed enough to provide that kind of
information. I think the officer has testified
that he is generally familiar with the
intersection. And --
MR. NEILL: Very well,
your Honor.
THE COURT: -- that’s going to have
to do. I’m sorry.
Page
16:
MR. NEILL: That's no
problem. I withdraw the photograph.
THE COURT: No. We have to keep it
for our records.
MR. NEILL: Oh, okay.
Very good.
Let’s -- using the
officer’s photographs then from the automatic
enforcement system, is it true that -- that my
vehicle that I’m driving is traveling west -- you
know, westerly -- a westbound direction on Fair
Oaks Boulevard and it’s in one pf three left turn
lanes westbound on Fair Oaks Boulevard that is
attempting to turn left onto southbound Watt
avenue?
OFFICER McCURRY:
That is correct.
MR. NEILL: And of those
three lanes, is my vehicle -- if we could assign
numbers to those lanes. The left most lane on Fair
Oaks Boulevard turning left, call it No. 1, the
center lane, No. 2, and the right-hand most left
turn lane, No. 3. Would you say I was -- my
vehicle was in lane No. 3?
OFFICER McCURRY: Yes.
MR. NEILL: Okay.
THE COURT: Mr. Neill, the officer’s
already testified to all of this. You need to move
on to new ground, please.
MR. NEILL: Okay. Well,
could you please read then Section -- Vehicle Code
Section 21453(c), which I am charged with
violating?
OFFICER McCURRY: Read it aloud?
MR. NEILL: Right. Do
you have it with you?
Page
17:
OFFICER McCURRY: Sure.
THE COURT: I -- I --
why?
MR. NEILL: For the
purpose of entering it into the record, the -- the
precise Vehicle Code which I am charged with
violating.
THE COURT: Do you not have a copy
of it, sir?
MR. NEILL: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Then all three of us
have copies of it.
MR. NEILL: Okay. Very
well, your Honor. I’m sorry.
A copy of section --
Vehicle Code Section 21453 states, and I quote, “A
driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not
enter the intersection to make the movement
indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the
intersection to make a movement permitted by
another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked
limit line,” and then it goes on to describe limit
line exceptions.
As you read this
violation, Officer, must a driver in the No. 3
left-hand turn lane westbound on Watt Avenue -- or
westbound on Fair Oaks Avenue [sic] -- excuse me
-- stop at a red arrow if their intention at that
time is -- and there is a solid green signal to
proceed through on Fair Oaks Boulevard, through
the intersection, cannot that driver proceed
through the intersection, obeying the other
traffic signal?
Page
18:
Isn’t that what this
Vehicle Code section is saying, that it’s not a
violation of this section if the driver intended
to make a movement permitted by another signal at
that same intersection?
OFFICER McCURRY:
That’s actually correct. That’s a specific
violation. If you were to make a left-hand turn
against the red, you’d be in violation of that
section. However, if you continued straight from
that -- that lane, you’d be in violation of a
different section, improper lane usage. But --
THE COURT: Mr. -- Mr. Neill, is it
your contention that you did not make a left-hand
turn?
MR. NEILL: It is my
contention, your Honor, that it was my intention
--
THE COURT: I’m not asking your
intention, sir. I’m asking, are you contending
that you did not make a left-hand turn?
MR. NEILL: When I
crossed the red arrow signal, I intended to change
lanes and proceed straight through the solid green
light along with the traffic that was proceeding
westbound on Fair Oaks Boulevard.
THE COURT: I understand what you
have testified to. Are you -- you have not
answered my question, however. Are you stating
that you did not make a left-hand turn at the
intersection of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt
Avenue?
MR. NEILL: No, I’m not
saying that.
THE COURT: Very well.
Page
19:
MR. NEILL: The second
photograph shows that I completed a left turn. The
point that I’m trying to make, your Honor, is that
at the time I penetrated the limit line against a
red arrow, there was a solid green signal to
proceed straight on -- across the intersection and
on --and continue on down Fair Oaks Boulevard
instead of turning left. That was my intention at
the moment that I -- that I penetrated the limit
line through the red arrow.
But Section 21453(c)
of the Vehicle Code says that as long as my
intention, when I crossed the limit line, was to
perform a maneuver permitted by another signal at
the intersection, then I have not committed a
violation at that point in time. And --
THE COURT: I understand your
argument. It’s very creative. Do you have anything
else?
MR. NEILL: Yes.
[Pause]
MR. NEILL: Okay. The
second point that I wish to make -- and we touched
on it with the introduction of the photographs --
is that the automated enforcement system that is
being operated at Watt and Fair Oaks Boulevard is
not, in fact, operating in conformance with the
minimum yellow change interval time as established
by law.
THE COURT: And how is that?
MR. NEILL: By referring
to the mathematical equation, your Honor, which
was introduced in Table 9-1, laying the foundation
for the admission of the photographs --
THE COURT: Did you read People’s
Exhibit 7? A copy was given to you, sir.
[[Reproduced below.]]
Page
20:
MR. NEILL: Is this the
letter from the County of Sacramento?
THE COURT: Yes it is.
MR. NEILL: No, I
haven’t read that, your Honor.
THE COURT: You need to read that,
sir. We’ll give you a minute to do that.
MR. NEILL: Okay.
[Pause]
[Off the record]
MR. NEILL: I don’t -- I don’t
really understand. I would understand if -- if the
field engineer is stating that the yellow times at
all Sacramento County intersections exceed --
exceed the yellow time specified by the Caltrans
traffic manual. They certainly do. They exceed
them in the wrong direction, is what I’m trying to
say.
THE COURT: That they’re too long?
MR. NEILL: No. That
they’re too short.
THE COURT: No. This says that the
county’s standard yellow time for left turn
approaches are 3.5 seconds, which meets the
requirements for the approach speeds up to 35
miles per hour, greatly exceeds the Caltrans
District 3, 3.1 seconds yellow for left turns
based on approach speeds of 18 to 25 miles per
hour.
Page
21:
MR. NEILL: On westbound
Fair Oaks Boulevard, any speeds up to 40 miles per
hour are lawful, left turn or otherwise. And 3.5
seconds does -- is not enough seconds of yellow
time to conform with the Caltrans traffic manual
for an area where the lawful speed is 40 miles per
hour. In which case, it’s 3.9 seconds.
THE COURT: So it's your argument
that because the maximum posted speed limit on
Fair Oaks Boulevard in that area is 40 miles per
hour, you should be able to go --you should be
able to approach a left-hand turn at 40 miles per
hour?
MR. NEILL: Any yellow
time, your Honor, that is less than that will, in
fact, establish what’s called a dilemma zone,
where a driver in the dilemma zone has no lawful
alternative, no lawful option available to them.
Now, if -- if the
County of Sacramento wanted to make those yellow
times 5 seconds, there would be no dilemma zone.
In fact, at 40 miles per hour, as on Watt Avenue,
at 4.0 seconds, there is no dilemma zone.
But as soon as you
start making them smaller and you get down to 3.5
seconds or less, you’re creating a dilemma zone,
where drivers traveling at a lawful speed can be
caught on a section of the roadway which leaves
them no legal option. When the light turns yellow,
they are doomed to break the law.
And I have a report
on that topic from the Institute of -- for
Transportation Research and Education at North
Carolina State University, which I’d be happy to
introduce into evidence.
THE COURT: You need to show it to
the officer first.
OFFICER McCURRY: And
what is this?
Page
22:
MR. NEILL: It’s a
research study that’s published by the North
Carolina State University Institute for
Transportation Research and Education. It was
written by a professional engineer and a senior
research associate, along with some others. And
it’s a discussion on yellow time calculations and
red light enforcement tolerances that are
applicable to this -- this case.
If it were not for
this 3.5 seconds, that would not be relevant, your
Honor. If Sacramento County said 4.0 seconds or
4.5 seconds, there would be no dilemma zone and
this would not be relevant
It’s only when they
try to want to reduce the yellow time interval to
below 4.0 seconds for a 40-mile-per-hour zone like
Watt -- like Fair Oaks Boulevard that they create
dilemma zones, where drivers are left with no
lawful option if they happen to be in that dilemma
zone when the light turns yellow.
THE COURT: Officer McCurry, do you
have any objection to the --
OFFICER McCURRY:
Your Honor, this appears to be an opinion by
someone who is not a -- a government official that
is in charge of this program.
Additionally, I
don’t know where this -- or the defendant received
this information. I don’t think it’s a public
document; so, therefore, I can’t -- I’m not saying
that the subject would give me something that he
has changed or made up. However, I don’t know of
its origination. Therefore, I would not -- I would
request that it be denied being entered into
evidence.
Page
23:
THE COURT: Okay.
Bring it up to me.
[Pause]
THE COURT: Would you mark this --
where are we up to?
THE CLERK: C.
THE COURT: C on Defendant’s.
[Defendant’s Exhibit
C marked for identification]
[Pause]
THE COURT: Mr. Neill, I understand
your argument. And, again, it’s another very
creative argument except for one small problem;
and that is, Vehicle Code Section 22350, which is
the basic speed law which says you should not be
driving in excess --
[Off-record
conversation]
THE COURT: -- at a speed greater
than is reasonable or prudent.
And you’re trying to
make the argument, therefore, that it is
reasonable and prudent to drive 40 miles an hour
approaching a left-hand turn light. And you’re
going to have to convince me that that’s
reasonable and prudent, because it seems fast to
me.
MR. NEILL: Well --
THE COURT: And I'm -- I’m open to
the argument. I’m just saying, you know, you’re
going to have to convince me.
Page
24:
MR. NEILL: It’s lawful.
And I’m aware that -- because I drive through this
intersection every day and have for four years.
There are times when it is not possible to drive
40 miles per hour in one of those left turn lanes.
And, certainly, by the time you get to the
intersection, even though it is a very large
intersection, allowing ample room in which to turn
-- I mean, I believe I could make a
39-mile-per-hour left-turn lane [sic] on that
particular intersection, your Honor. Just because
of its hugeness, it’s usually not reasonable and
prudent to do so.
But this, of course
-- because the yellow times have been shortened,
this works to the disadvantage of the driver who
is approaching this and -- and, basically, because
of reasonableness, is forced to slow down. So that
if that driver makes the wrong decision when that
light turns yellow -- you know, whereas, at 40
miles per hour, they could get into the
intersection on the yellow and --and not even
trigger the automated enforcement system, but they
are restricted by reasonableness, as you say, that
prevents them from -- from that being a correct
decision.
In other words,
that’s a wrong decision, which they have to make
at the instant the yellow light comes on. If they
make that incorrect -- incorrect, instantaneous
decision, they will -- they will not make it to
the intersection before the light turns red. Their
only hope is to try and stop the car, regardless
of what speed --lawful speed they’re going prior
to the intersection and regardless of what risks
that may entail.
Page
25:
THE COURT: Okay. Officer McCurry,
do you have any rebuttal?
OFFICER McCURRY:
About this specific point?
THE COURT: Yes.
OFFICER McCURRY: The
Vehicle Code states that you have to -- you must
follow -- for yellow times, follow the Caltrans
safety traffic manual. The safety traffic manual
says yellow times are determined upon approach
speeds. Nowhere does it say that it’s determined
upon posted speed limits, prima facie, or maximum
speed limits. It’s based upon approach speeds.
Now, that may be
vague and it’s -- and it’s what they listed.
However, the approach speeds are determined by the
civil engineers, which work for the State of
California, which are subsequently liable for any
sort of lawsuits that may come about. So when they
make these determinations, they’re making it as
far as being safe for the public, which our whole
system is designed to deter aggressive driving
behaviors.
And the approach
speed, as determined by Caltrans, District -- I
think it’s District 3, for left-hand turns, they
determined the approach safe speed to be 18 to 25
miles for a left-hand turn.
Now, could he make a
left-hand turn at 40 miles per hour doing that?
Yes, he could. That would be unsafe. And it would
not be prudent for a person to do something like
that. Just as going down Watt Avenue, maybe,
during the day and there’s no traffic, on a
Sunday, 50 miles per hour may be a safe speed;
however, it doesn’t affect the yellow time of 4.0
seconds.
Page
26:
What we’re talking
about here is the approach speed. And the approach
speed has been determined by civil engineers with
safety in mind. And they’ve determined that the
safe speed be 18 to 25, in which our yellow time
actually exceeds their recommendation.
THE COURT: Okay. Any other
theories, Mr. Neill?
MR. NEILL: Just one
more, your Honor. And -- and I did have one
question that I forgot to ask, just one --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NEILL: -- of the
officer regarding maintenance of the signals.
Are the technicians
that respond to you -- or under your auspices, as
you are the government agency that’s operating
this system. Do -- the technicians, under your
auspices, are they cape -- are they -- is it
within their authority to adjust tolerances or
other technical settings with the traffic signals
themselves?
OFFICER McCURRY:
With our --
MR. NEILL: Can they
open up a traffic signal and adjust yellow times
or --
OFFICER McCURRY: The
traffic signal or the camera?
MR. NEILL: The signal.
OFFICER McCURRY: No.
They’re --
MR. NEILL: Do your
technicians maintain the traffic --
Page
27:
THE COURT: You mean the camera
system technicians?
MR. NEILL: Right. Do
they --
OFFICER McCURRY: No.
MR. NEILL: -- maintain
the traffic signal?
OFFICER McCURRY: No.
They’re separate entities. The County of
Sacramento maintains the signal system.
MR. NEILL: Okay.
THE COURT: And you said you had one
more theory.
MR. NEILL: One more
theory, your Honor, and I’ll try to make it as
brief as possible.
THE COURT: That would be good.
MR. NEILL: But it’s the
most creative, if possible.
I maintain that the
manner in which these automated enforcement
systems are being operated in Sacramento County
creates a classification which treats persons
situated -- which treats persons similarly
situated in an unequal manner, thereby, depriving
them of equal protection of the law.
Page
28:
That theory is
founded on the equation that’s listed in Table 9-1
of the Caltrans traffic manual. That mathematical
equation, the very first parameter in determining
yellow time is human reaction time. And that
formula merely specifies that all of us human
beings and citizens of California have a reaction
time of 1.0 seconds. There are published studies
which show there is a wide variation in human
reaction time. Perhaps, this officer has had some
training in human reaction time.
It varies widely
among human beings. And, yet, this system creates
a classification whereby there are two groups of
human beings: those that can -- through physical
dexterity, youth, and prowess, mental prowess,
they can achieve the 1.0 second reaction time,
human reaction time, and those of us who can-not,
your Honor, despite -- try as we might, we are
limited in -- in the group that cannot meet the
1.0 second reaction time by our physical
characteristics.
And, thereby, we
have a situation here, because the county chooses
to reduce the yellow time rather than get rid of
the dilemma zone entirely --
THE COURT: Mr. Neill, are you sure
you want to make this argument on the record?
MR. NEILL: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NEILL: And,
particularly, based on the --just the few cases I
saw here this morning. Each one of them is a
violation -- was a violation -- an alleged
violation of Section 21453(c) --
THE COURT: So you’re saying that
you cannot meet the 1.0 second reaction time used
by Caltrans in setting the length of --
MR. NEILL: And this
sets me apart from those who can, your Honor, and
makes me a lawbreaker. Whereas, those who can meet
the 1.0 second reaction time are not. And that
deprives me of equal protection of the laws.
Page
29:
THE COURT: What I think it should
deprive you of is a driver’s license, sir, because
I believe you’ve just testified you’re not
competent to drive.
MR. NEILL: Ah, no. No.
Actually, the 1.0 second reaction time is for a
very youthful human being at peak, at peak
efficiency.
THE COURT: Officer McCurry.
OFFICER McCURRY:
Yes, your Honor. The 1.0 second reaction time
actually exceeds the average person’s reaction
time as being a time distance.
And a braking expert
for the California Highway Patrol, working
mathematical equations for traffic accidents, the
average time we use for reaction time is 0.75
seconds. Caltrans has the reaction time set at
1.00 seconds, which exceeds -- exceeds the average
time that we use for determining our figures.
Additionally, if the
defendant can’t meet -- even meet these times, I
feel that he is more dangerous to our society as a
driver and is not -- the -- the point that he’s
saying that we’re not giving him equal protection,
a drive -- a driver’s license is a privilege to go
out there and drive.
Page
30:
If he just can’t
have normal reaction time or even close to normal
reaction times and if he knows that he doesn’t
have close normal reaction times, you should take
that into consideration. I -- I think he’s a
dangerous driver if he can’t even be close to
normal reaction times and even take that into
consideration. And, possibly, he should not have a
driver’s license.
MR. NEILL: Well, that
would conflict with the authorities in the report
that’s been admitted into evidence about the
dilemma zone.
THE COURT: It has not been admitted
into evidence. I have not ruled on that. And it
will not be admitted into evidence because it has
not been properly authenticated.
MR. NEILL: Well, will
the record show that it was not admitted into
evidence?
THE COURT: I just took care of
that.
MR. NEILL: Thank you,
your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else, Mr.
Neill?
MR. NEILL: That is all,
your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. Despite the
best and most creative arguments I have ever
heard, I am going to find you guilty of violating
Vehicle Code 21453 (c). It is a mandatory $100
fine, plus penalty assessment.
If you’ll have a
seat, one of the clerks will escort you over to
the fine’s room, assuming it is still open.
THE CLERK: It’s open. And the
[indiscernible] is 281.
THE COURT: Yes, the total is 281.
[Off-record
conversation]
[Whereupon, the
proceedings were concluded.]
Trial Exhibits
People's 7:
[[ At the request of the
defendant, names have not
been changed. ]]
|